Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

... if they don't bring in a classic Doctor but they do bring in a new previous Doctor, I wouldn't like that.

On the other hand, if they do bring in a classic Doctor and they have Hurt as well, that's just fine!

I just don't want Hurt at the expense of a classic Doctor. I don't mind what such a development would do the series history though, as long as it was a good story.

Mr Awe

This sums my thoughts up exactly. I agree that the prospect of there being a previous Doctor out there is intriguing, for the same reasons as generated by The Brain Of Morbius. However, if the 50th anniversary special is to feature multiple Doctors, then I think it should be an opportunity for past Doctors from the show to return, whether recast or (preferably) played by the original actors.

A few days ago, for example, someone (Brendan Moody ?)said that maybe only 50,000 people would care about Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor. Fair enough point but surely he's at least as important as Hurt's Doctor? Those who don't already know him can come to be interested in him at least as easily as they can become interested in Hurt's Doctor.

I have no complaints about an acting titan like Hurt being in DW but if his character (assuming he's a Doctor) comes at the expense of a 'classic' Doctor, I think it's a bit of a wasted opportunity. I think a story like that might be better told within a regular series run.

A few days ago, for example, someone (Brendan Moody ?)said that maybe only 50,000 people would care about Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor. Fair enough point but surely he's at least as important as Hurt's Doctor? Those who don't already know him can come to be interested in him at least as easily as they can become interested in Hurt's Doctor.

The difference is that John Hurt is, to use your words, an acting titan, and Paul McGann (although he's very good as the Doctor, particularly in the better Big Finish audios) is not. I'm not sure I buy this "secret Doctor" notion, except possibly as a fake-out, but from a promotional perspective, "One of Britain's most famous actors plays a past Doctor" is a bigger deal than "the 'I' from Withnail and I plays a past Doctor."

Anyway, whatever role Hurt is playing, I doubt it's at the expense of a classic Doctor. It'll turn out that what Hurt's character is doing couldn't, for plot reasons, have been done by McGann or Davison or whoever.

On a related note, I think people need to let go of the idea that this being marketed as the 50th anniversary special means it's more likely or more obligated to integrate the classic series in some way. Unfortunately, "50th anniversary" is more a marketing opportunity, a brand, than a content description. It's an excuse to sell more merchandise and do one more "event" episode of the current version of the series, with the same indifference to 1963-1996 as ever. I wish it could be different, but the popular perception of one continuous series that allowed big continuity fests in 1973, 1983, and 1993 no longer exists.

It's an excuse to do one more "event" episode of the current version of the series, with the same indifference to 1963-1996 as ever. I wish it could be different, but the popular perception of one continuous series that allowed big continuity fests in 1973, 1983, and 1993 no longer exists.

So what happened exactly? Did I imagine the Ice Warrior last week? And the HADS reference? And when the Doctor talked about his granddaughter the week before that? And oh, we had UNIT the week before, right? It was all in my mind, is that what you're saying?

A few days ago, for example, someone (Brendan Moody ?)said that maybe only 50,000 people would care about Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor. Fair enough point but surely he's at least as important as Hurt's Doctor? Those who don't already know him can come to be interested in him at least as easily as they can become interested in Hurt's Doctor.

The difference is that John Hurt is, to use your words, an acting titan, and Paul McGann (although he's very good as the Doctor, particularly in the better Big Finish audios) is not. I'm not sure I buy this "secret Doctor" notion, except possibly as a fake-out, but from a promotional perspective, "One of Britain's most famous actors plays a past Doctor" is a bigger deal than "the 'I' from Withnail and I plays a past Doctor."

I suspect you're probably right about the 'secret Doctor' (or not) point (though might some misdirection there not be a bit too close to The Next Doctor Xmas special from a few years ago?).

I'm not necessarily sure I agree with you about the publicity that Hurt brings as oppose to that which McGann would bring. By and large, the people who have no idea that Paul McGann was the 8th Doctor probably don't know who John Hurt is either. And those who know who Hurt is but aren't interested in DW won't necessarily tune in just because he happens to be in it. I think the return of any Doctor to the show tends to get a lot of publicity, in the same way that when the show brought back the Daleks, Cybermen, Davros, The Master etc it garnered a lot of publicity.

Anyway, whatever role Hurt is playing, I doubt it's at the expense of a classic Doctor. It'll turn out that what Hurt's character is doing couldn't, for plot reasons, have been done by McGann or Davison or whoever.

Yeah, I think that's very likely. If that is the case, his presence won't bother me at all; indeed, if the rumours are true about his role, they probably have cast someone other than the classic Doctors for this very reason. But it would bother me if I think that the role was essentially interchangeable with a classic Doctor. But no point speculating just yet.

On a related note, I think people need to let go of the idea that this being marketed as the 50th anniversary special means it's more likely or more obligated to integrate the classic series in some way. Unfortunately, "50th anniversary" is more a marketing opportunity, a brand, than a content description. It's an excuse to sell more merchandise and do one more "event" episode of the current version of the series, with the same indifference to 1963-1996 as ever. I wish it could be different, but the popular perception of one continuous series that allowed big continuity fests in 1973, 1983, and 1993 no longer exists.

I don't agree with this at all. We have had references to the classic Doctors and their pictures onscreen, we've had Sarah Jane back, we've had references to the Brigadier and his offspring, the return of classic villains etc.

Just to chime in, I think the new series, both under RTD and Moffat has been very respectful of the classic series. Yes RTD steered clear of a lot in the early days, but that was clearly intentional to reintroduce the character with as little baggage as possible, and once he'd done this he gradually introduced more and more of the show's history into the modern incarnation.

Don't get me wrong, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Peter Davison pootling around the universe with Ten and Eleven, but just because that isn't going to happen it doesn't mean the anniversary special is going out of it's way to disrespect the classic series, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse I'll cite Star Trek again. Trials and Tribbleations had no new footage of original series cast members in it, Flashback did, yet I know which was the more enjoyable, and the more reverential.

at the risk of flogging a dead horse I'll cite Star Trek again. Trials and Tribbleations had no new footage of original series cast members in it, Flashback did, yet I know which was the more enjoyable, and the more reverential.

That's a fair comparison/ example, so I'm not tired of you mentioning it again. However, at the risk of pre-judging the anniversary special, none of the Trek 30th specials dispensed with the TOS crew and opted to introduce, e.g. James Caan as an Enterprise Captain we'd never heard of before!

at the risk of flogging a dead horse I'll cite Star Trek again. Trials and Tribbleations had no new footage of original series cast members in it, Flashback did, yet I know which was the more enjoyable, and the more reverential.

That's a fair comparison/ example, so I'm not tired of you mentioning it again. However, at the risk of pre-judging the anniversary special, none of the Trek 30th specials dispensed with the TOS crew and opted to introduce, e.g. James Caan as an Enterprise Captain we'd never heard of before!

Just to chime in, I think the new series, both under RTD and Moffat has been very respectful of the classic series. Yes RTD steered clear of a lot in the early days, but that was clearly intentional to reintroduce the character with as little baggage as possible, and once he'd done this he gradually introduced more and more of the show's history into the modern incarnation.

Don't get me wrong, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Peter Davison pootling around the universe with Ten and Eleven, but just because that isn't going to happen it doesn't mean the anniversary special is going out of it's way to disrespect the classic series, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse I'll cite Star Trek again. Trials and Tribbleations had no new footage of original series cast members in it, Flashback did, yet I know which was the more enjoyable, and the more reverential.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. And totally agree that both RTD and Moffat have been very respectful towards the original series.

The only thing I'd add is to your Star Trek analogy. As it worked out, yes, Trials and Tribbleations was better. However, it needn't have been that way. It all comes down to execution. If Flashback had been executed better, we might be holding that up today as evidence that the classic actors must appear.

In the end, I just want a good story that is well executed. My preference is that such a story includes the original actors. However, if it doesn't and it's still a good story, I won't be complaining!